Category talk:LGBT physicians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because original deletion discussion was six years ago. This category was recreated 2 years ago, and consensus can change. If someone wants to delete this category, the proper way is to list it on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --В и к и T 14:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the recent discussions at LGBT austronauts, LGBT linguists and LGBT psychologists, consensus hasn't changed regarding these type of categories. Nymf talk to me 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now that there is some sort of campaign to delete these categories. Did you bother to notify relevant wikiprojects? --В и к и T 12:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I would have to do that. Their opinion on categorization does not matter more than anyone else's. Nymf talk to me 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not meet the criteria for G4 CSD. The original deletion discussion] that occurred more than 5 1/2 years ago was for the category Gay Physicians, as evidenced by the nominators statement:

"Subcat created from Category:LGBT physicians. Parent cat should be kept, this one deleted. SatyrTN (talk - contribs) 12:00 am, 29 May 2007, Tuesday (5 years, 7 months, 26 days ago) (UTC−4)"

- MrX 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. LGBT physicians is the category that was discussed and subsequently deleted, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_29#Category:LGBT_physicians. Nymf talk to me 15:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused because the nomination specifically excluded Category:LGBT physicians and there were several !votes that stated that that category should be keep. As there was no clear consensus, and it seems that the closing admin did a poor job of assessing consensus, I stand by my original contestation. Clearly, this should go through the normal CfD process, if at all. - MrX 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]